Down to Cases: More recreational shooting: Son sues father

In February I wrote about the risks inherent in leased hunting properties. AA&B reader Curt McClure called my attention to another interesting case from Louisiana on the same subject with a twist: A son sued his father for injuries while on the father’s property to hunt.

Louisiana established a statute encouraging the use of rural land for hunting and other recreational purposes by limiting the duty element of the tort of negligence to protect the property owners who allow their properties to be used for recreational purposes. If your client wishes to lease out his property for recreational purposes, it is important to determine whether the state has protective statutes like the Louisiana statutes that are the point of Cooper v. Cooper (786 So.2d 240 [La.App. Cir.2 05/09/2001]). Son versus father David F. Cooper III owned a 2,500-acre tract of land in Madison Parish, La., with 1,000 acres in row-crop land leased to Gerald Collins. Approximately 1,245 acres was recreational property “to be sold for hunting or as recreational use.” On Oct. 15, 1997, while driving his truck around the property, his son, John David Cooper, saw hired men unloading a tower stand from a trailer attached to a vehicle owned by one of the employees, Samuel K. Smith. John David offered to help the men. As the four men tried to get the stand upright, the deer stand fell on John David, causing injuries to his shoulder, arm, neck and knee. On Oct. 5, 1998, John David and his wife Julie filed suit against David F. Cooper III, and his insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.; Samuel K. Smith, one of the workers who owned the vehicle pulling the trailer that was carrying the deer stand; Smith’s automobile liability insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.; and John David’s UN/UIM, Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. The father and his insurer presented a defense based upon Louisiana statutes relating to the recreational use of land. The statute provided, in part: An owner, lessee, or occupant of premises owes no duty of care to keep such premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, sightseeing or boating or to give warning of any hazardous conditions, use of, structure or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purposes [? 2791]. The Court of Appeal stated the goal of the statute is “to encourage owners of land to make land and water area available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes.” To determine if the statutes apply to protect the defendant landowner, the court must apply the following tests: